"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

With growing problems around the western world, from Mexicans flooding across the American border to Muslims declaring Islamic cities in Britain, it is becoming clear something is very wrong across the world where large numbers of immigrants from poorer and less developed countries are welcomed into the most developed. Despite the left challenging any questioning of immigration of racist (although many who do are immigrants themselves) all that did was allow it to happen on such a scale and hold back any action to deal with it. But using what can only be commonsense and experience there are many solid reasons why mass immigration from entirely opposing cultures and economies is destined to end in tears, and must not be spread from the liberal west beyond as we have already begun to experience the inevitable issues almost guaranteed to happen when mixing such differing groups.

Besides the vast imbalances in population movement from poorer to richer, which is a practical issue of numbers which makes everything else worse, here are the unavoidable consequences of allowing in unrestricted populations from vastly differing areas:

The idea of diversity is a hollow and imaginary ideology. In fact the more people from any culture worldwide will wait till there are enough of them, form a community, and basically isolate themselves from the native culture and form a small pocket of their own. The larger it grows then the shops and religious institutions follow, and in the end as Britain has demonstrated, firms are set up employing only their own culture and often only speaking their own language. This is not the people's fault as the British or Americans would do exactly the same elsewhere, but inevitable human nature.

Economically of course allowing people from the poorest countries into the richest with few if any questions asked will be like putting fruit out and watching the ants congregate around it. None of my points relate to the immigrants, who do what everyone in their position would, if you open the cookie jar and leave the room then it will become plundered as you have invited it to be so. The two points here are firstly the rich countries have worked for centuries (OK, some through colonising the third world, but they were given free passage in return and not part of this equation as a result), and why should anyone purely for economic reasons be able to piggyback on the efforts of many generations of other people's hard work for nothing? Secondly, Britain was once a dictatorship and we sorted it out, as was Spain, and many other now developed countries at one point or another. Did the citizens start an exodus and simply cross many other countries to the Shangrila of their choice, or fight until they'd sorted out the government and economy? Every single country has to go through these growing pains, and why can't others go through their own instead of being allowed an easy way out to simply pick a country of their choice and be welcomed there for absolutely nothing in return?

In practical terms, numbers are obvious, but so is language. What is the point of having few or any rules about speaking the language properly before offering someone a job, and more so like Israel why not make everyone learn English as a condition of staying? The mistakes caused by people in responsible positions, especially medicine, by simple language errors can cost health and ultimately lives. I have seen it myself too many times and is guaranteed in every case as it's physically impossible for anyone to learn enough of a language in a few months or years to translate it well enough for a professional position.

Third world countries unfortunately represent a spread of historic development at the same point in time, meaning some countries live like 2014 while others 1514 and a few like the stone age. There are plenty of tribal fights and religious feuds going back hundreds of years, and like the stone age and dark ages they still believe in wiping out their enemies outside a formal war situation. It is bad enough that in a world where they are exposed directly to countries who stopped doing this hundreds of years ago they carry on doing it their way as that is what they do. That is part of the live and let live condition of the world, besides some marginal interventions the UN did sod all in Rwanda and Sudan and Ed Miliband made sure nothing took place when it happened recently in Syria. As in Star Trek's prime directive, technically there is no rule to intervene, as unless requested it can be better to allow other countries, like your own children, to learn by themselves, as whatever you do it will not teach them anything as they are determined their way is right regardless. When you then import these cultures, whether warlike, drug runners, credit card thieves, whatever, you are simply doing the equivalent of emptying another country's prison population into your own along with the good ones as absolutely no tests are carried out in Britain at least to filter out criminals, unlike Australia and the US. So once you allow in criminal gangs, whether organised or cultural in nature, you will import crime where none of its kind previously existed, not so different from bringing back diseases we wiped out long ago like TB and some strains of hepatitis which are now stretching the capabilities of our NHS as so many immigrants are of course bringing the 19th century illnesses with them and getting free treatment without the money to employ new staff to do so.

Possibly the worst on the list is importing cultures hostile to the local one. Extreme Islam is now creating gangs setting up Islamic areas in London and Birmingham, and although technically the police are partially dealing with them (as it is a crime to do so) it should never have been able to happen in the first place. At a lesser but far wider degree, every single foreign culture does things their own way. Many Asian cultures regardless of the religion use family honour as one of the highest values to them. That means whatever one family member does reflects on the others, and women can be ostracised if they divorce or their children commit a crime for example, and women in fact are often treated like servants as that is what they do where they come from. Why bring that back where it hasn't happened for a very long time?

However many advantages the opposing views will provide, I believe the inbuilt guaranteed problems are always going to be greater than the chance for cheap labour, freely available curry and the chance to experience other cultures first hand without going abroad. And by calling me or anyone like me racist, why not ask immigrants from the 50s or 60s to comment, as they do regularly on the radio, and say in many cases exactly the same as me, as they have come from times when the country was more selective, the numbers were such it was easier to mix with everyone local as well as your own groups, and they are now third generation and have a combination of their own and the national culture to feel just as challenged as anyone else. And anyone working in such a mixed environment will soon discover every new race who arrives feels at least as hostile to the British or other natives as some do to them, often far more so. If you don't believe me set up an experiment where an Asian woman brings home a black or white man. Fifty years ago many British parents would have objected initially but many accept them after a while. Now few would care at all. Try it the other way and see what happens in maybe a hundred cases and note the average responses.

Again, this antipathy is not our fault or their fault, it is human nature and perfectly normal. It can be softened over time, but in the countries currently at war with their own people clearly not always. You can't and shouldn't simply force the new arrivals to assimilate or go, as why should they (unless they are criminals in which case they shouldn't be there in the first place), as one thing the left do get right is every culture is equal unless they commit atrocities like FGM and killing family members who break their rules. Which again are serious crimes. You can't simply regiment people and make them British or American or anything else, they are who they are and if they want little Afghanistans or Italies forever in other countries there is no reason why they shouldn't as that is who they are. Neither is it practical for any more than little Pakistans or Punjabs to grow up in other cities worldwide, as without any controls they will grow and grow and eventually become lesser Pakistan or Punjab, and then North Pakistan and Punjab. Of course then we cross to the personal opinion that some believe being able to drive through five countries in ten miles is a wonderful thing to some people and a disaster for others. That part of it will always be personal preference but my point is that it is likelier for the majority of immigrant communities to become closeknit isolated bunches of their own countries, with marginal interaction with the local and other communities. Many do not even need to learn the national language as they spend their whole time within their own enclaves from family life, shopping, cultural life and work. Just using my personal opinion I cannot see this as a good thing. Why? Because it is little different from being exiled and dropped into a random country and being forced to survive. When the random country comes to you and you are (rightly or wrongly) perceiving you do not belong in parts of where you grew up, from funny looks to people speaking in shops in their own languages, why would anyone feel comfortable like that? Fantastic if you can and do, but why should anyone have to with absolutely no say in it?

Monday, 25 August 2014

How many people read a newspaper article on global warming, and do not think everything claimed is of equal certainty? That would mean they treated the temperature rise, sea level changes, ice melt, causes of ice melt, water vapour changes, CO2 increase, causes of forest fires, droughts, hurricanes and any other extreme weather, all as equally certain within science.

How wrong they are. In fact unlike the formula for the volume of a circle or the distance from the sun, these items are all placed on a sliding scale from 100% to who knows whatever they can get away with. The confidence levels are not based on opinion, but the amount of direct measurements and the number of alternative causes. Unless every single newspaper report were to (as the IPCC to its credit does for them) include the confidence level for every single claim, and ideally the details of why it is lower or higher, which they all know themselves, the public have a false impression all climate data is of the same unquestionable standard, and use that as a meme they carry around and then infect each person they talk to about it.

Clearly they are not comparing like with like. Science in general has a sliding scale. Eating natural fats was demonised till a few years ago when tests showed most cholesterol was made internally and any from the diet was stored in a small percentage of people who could not process it properly by genetics, so rather than metabolise it had it build up in the body's tissues. In fact till the 20th century there wasn't much refined food, everyone ate their eggs, milk and meat with everything it came with naturally and didn't suffer more heart disease as a result, science caught up and moved on to salt and sugar, which they may well also find out are essential to our diets a few years from now.

The point is science is a moving target. Apart from the knowns, like you have appendicitis (but only once they've opened you up, as it can mimic a few other diseases from outside), the movement of solar systems, you have anaemia or a specific infection, or the local rainfall from a rain gauge and tide level from a tide gauge, using direct specific measurements, beyond that level the grey area (something literally found in their graphs, specifying the range of uncertainty) grows and grows, and when it becomes wider than the data itself it becomes worthless and no longer capable of use. Like the IPCC graphs for the next 100 years of temperature models, a range of around 5C, similar to widening the goalposts beyond the width of the pitch to make every shot score, or allowing most lottery tickets to win. But is it science (translated as 'knowledge') or simply using science to do something else for other personal reasons? Well having seen the standard required by science I think the answer there is obvious.

So basically science cannot be sure about many things, papers are written all the time which are either retracted or debunked at a later date, but given similar credit by the media at least and many politicians, giving the pay public little opportunity to learn the actual weight of the evidence, something more vital than any other area in statistics. Unless people are shown this in the reports, and the reasons why, then they have too little information to know, and in practical terms, vote for someone who will do the right and not the wrong thing with that information. Of course that would mean most such reports would never even be published, as imagine a reporter publishing a piece which then went on to say that 'we are only 40% certain this is the case, as the measurements were only possible for a limited area and depth of ocean/ice therefore it is only one possible answer among many not yet learnt'. It would be honest and accurate, but would it be journalism? Unfortunately not, so they aren't honest and they aren't accurate, and the general public make their decisions based on scattered piles of bullshit. Little new there really I suppose.

Sunday, 24 August 2014

Assuming an acceptance of the scientific formulae, such as CO2 adding 1C per doubling, and the basics of the greenhouse effect itself, this is a legal analysis of the elements of man made global warming using principles normally used in assessing the evidence in a criminal trial, where the entire prosecution is presented as a case to beat the null hypothesis, ie the defendant is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. As mankind is on trial for a civil wrong and punished by financial penalties this is an added similarity to a criminal trial, as both need to beat the null hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt, and technically there is no official reason to even provide evidence for the defence as the case ought to stand up by itself. In fact this rarely happens as the defence provide true alibi evidence in a false prosecution, as well as cross examining the prosecution as they are all actually wrong in reality. This can be proved totally when another person is latterly found guilty of the same offence, and otherwise by weight of evidence. The similarity of both is unless they can be proved beyond reasonable doubt they are void ab initio, non-existent in reality.

I will take each element used by scientists in their papers and run it through the same process a judge would use in deciding both the admissibility, ie whether it stands up as evidence at all, and if so its value- direct, supporting or tenuous.

Known advantages of warming, unknown disadvantages:

Although many experts claim it is not physically possible to prove the greenhouse effect, I will take it as read as the UN themselves provided the formula for significant global warming, a rise above 2C where the known (from historic records) benefits of global warming are outweighed by the unknown (we have no direct knowledge) problems. This itself is disputed, as using models the UN and their teams claim they do know what will happen, so we begin with secondary evidence versus direct. This is because numerous records from just the last warmer period, the medieval, proves beyond any doubt there was more food, fewer wars, less energy usage and fewer deaths from cold. The known element here (no doubt at all) is more people die of extreme cold than heat, as only the weaker members of society die of heat while everyone dies of cold equally.

So the first issue is the evidence for advantages of warming versus problems is far stronger, as based on direct knowledge opposed to speculated.

Feedback:

The next and vital element is the reason converting the 1C rise for doubling of CO2 (expected around 2100) is positive feedback, nearly all from evaporating oceans sending more water vapour into the atmosphere, which is theorised and can now be directly measured by satellites. Indirectly it can also be measured as if the temperature only rises by the base amount or so then it directly proves (as the temperature and increase in humidity from added water vapour are directly linked) it is absent or lower than modelled. This is first level, direct evidence. The temperature has risen 0.8C since 1850 and CO2 has conveniently risen about 50%. That means even if all the rise was from CO2 (which it isn't) it would only rise 1.6C at 520ppm, which the UN agree is good news and not able to cause significant disruption. As the temperature had been rising since the little ice age, as it always rises or falls between them all, the official (albeit very hard to find) attribution to CO2 is 0.5-6C, of which a doubling almost exactly matches the bare figure for doubling with no feedback. As water evaporates evenly, and there is no paper expecting delays in feedback (the models predict a 0.2C rise on average per decade) the direct evidence is the guilt of positive feedback was at home with its wife, not out partying in the atmosphere. It's not even absent by inference, NASA have measured its decline, and this is clearly a trend, and its AQUA satellite also discovered one reason it was reducing was it was being replaced by the added CO2 in the bands causing warming, which is many times less powerful than the water vapour it is replacing. That I would call a good alibi.

Law and science, as all life and logic shares, has primary and secondary effects. It is not possible for a temperature rise without a cause, even when we aren't sure what it is. Evaporation, sea level rise, and ice melt are the three major effects of a rising temperature. Sea level rises half from expansion and half from land ice melts, nearly all from Greenland plus some land based glaciers, as the Antarctic averages -46C and cannot melt under normal circumstances regardless of the CO2. You can directly measure the expansion and ice loss per C and less, and that has been forecast that the current <2mm rise per year could rise to 4mm or more. Switching to inches which I can follow properly, that would currently mean a rise from the 8 inches in the 20th century to around 12 inches at the current 3mm rise a year. That is not significant, as James Hansen is talking about up to 20 feet by 2100, which is not based on any evidence at all, and manages to invent Hansen's own new law of physics, by displaying a graph showing a logarithmic rise in sea level rather than the usual linear, with the rise waiting right till the end of the 21st century, ensuring none of us can ever know either way. Also (to see another element of doubt) the ancient land based measurements appear to be rising at a stable rate as in the 20th century while only the less directly measurable satellites show the added 1mm rise. There is at least one example of both faulty temperature satellites being used for years, which may have provided enough temperature rise alone for concern, and the entire system being calibrated slightly too high, adding the 1mm from the error alone. Ice core problems

Of course such a tactic in business and law would not only be frowned upon, but rejected and possibly considered for contempt of court or worse. I will leave this to your own judgement as little in the field of global warming cannot be understood by the lay person when looking at the gross data rather than the theories which are behind it.

Temperature adjustments:

The temperature driving these three elements is not agreed at all. The past and present temperatures are all adjusted and revised constantly, and the legal alarm which went off with the present temperatures are when adjusted for heat islands and missing weather stations etc, nearly all the graphs are tilted up at the present however they started off. (LINK) This is the territory of police constables who find a similar story turning up in all their interviews, showing the witnesses and suspects got together in advance to concoct a story. Where random figures all look regular (as they did in the Dutch fake sociological study in city centres, which was the only way they found they had been written in his house rather than in the field as claimed) there are alarm bells ringing pointing to a common element of manipulation. Filling in the gaps as you chooseAustralian adjustments

The UN themselves have set the standard for adjustments, although in their credit after three major revisions, the third in 2014 was actually slightly higher in the past than the last flattening. But each time their cheerleaders say that they have vastly improved their means to measure the past temperature, meaning you can discard the old models and use the new ones, until a few years later they bring out yet another one. How can you tell which is the best and if the latest is the last? You can't.

Inconsistency:

Incosistency is a shrieking siren in a court case. If ten witnesses to a road accident describe the speed and appearance of the cars and the drivers differently, only one can be right, and you don't know which one. If enough disagree the case must be dismissed. The scientists here use two measurements, the direct data and the anomaly, the change from a chosen point in time, which is meant to compare old and new and iron out any noise and other variations. Then you take the sets of each, for every possible criterion, and find they disagree. Not slightly or occasionally but as the norm. Going back to our road accident, how would you know which of the many varieties of past and present measurements are genuine, and which are either adjusted, filled in for empty areas unable to be measured directly, and entirely made up. Look at these for examples covering pretty much everything. World temperature variationsFuture based evidence:

One thing you can never hear in a court case, besides a few medical civil cases, is a future prognosis, and criminal cases entirely are based on the past. In science there are two ways to predict, or forecast as they prefer to use, linear and non-linear. Linear are not only predictable but almost guaranteed, as they are linked systems like the solar system and can be followed for millions of years past and future reliably. Unless something is linear it is chaotic. These are also called closed and open systems. A closed system does not allow any loss to outside, like a real greenhouse has a glass roof blocking all air totally. An open system is the theoretical greenhouse above the earth, made of gas, totally permeable and constantly moving. You should begin to be seeing the differences now, although both are treated the same by the media and politicians. But when the UN themselves state clearly "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and
therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not
possible." yet ignore their own advice, as does the entire climate science community. Weather forecasts before the global warming meme were never more than six months ahead, normally three, as the probability gets closer to 50-50 the further ahead you go until it becomes no better than random. Why would this change for many years ahead (the current IPCC report goes ahead a few hundred years) for climate?Induction:

Science, law and life all state you cannot generalise from the particular to the general. So if you read National Geographic, New Scientist and Nature magazines, why are most of the pieces on global warming, most based on newly published peer reviewed papers, either looking at local changes in ice, wildlife, temperature or rainfall? Interesting as it may be, firstly the major consideration must always lead the minor. If the UN say these problems will occur from 1-3C, and we have not yet reached 1C, how can they suggest any changes are from a temperature rise at all, let alone local ones? The answer is they can't. Not at all. They are providing irrelevant evidence. If it was added and collected and showed a trend for the entire world, like the temperature and sea level rises, then you could naturally assume a cause, even if you weren't sure what it was. But they don't do that, you get minute details about local plant changes in some remote part of the world, migration patterns of animals changing, difference in fish where they are being caught in larger numbers, and water distribution in areas affected by irrigation and deforestation, damming rivers and digging canals to explain every single change directly without any reference to the temperature. How and why inductive material beats the peer review is beyond the scope of science, and the reasons again simple enough to deduce (the proper method at all times) by the readers themselves.Speculation:

The second class of paper, equally represented in said journals and most media reports, are speculation. This of course is both outside the realm of law as irrelevant, and science outside the shortest future runs of chaotic open systems. But they still do it, and with absolutely no limits, and only some including the literal grey areas of error margins, much like losing a bet on nearly every number on a roulette wheel. They have fixed the odds so much in their favour if you invested in one of their schemes you would lose if the temperature rose between 1 and 6C and they would claim the cash invested for themselves. Is that a good or fair deal? Obviously not. But this is what they rely on almost entirely, partly as it is not yet happening by actual temperatures alone, and partly as we will never know as even they know it can't happen at all in our lifetimes so we have all been forced into a policy which will never pay out.

Claims about the speed of change are rife. The basis of man made warming is such changes themselves are within the normal range, but the current speed is unique. That is simply wrong. I only read in Thursday's Times (21-8-14) they now think Neanderthal man was wiped out by a Heinrich Event, a drop of 10C in a single year. And our current rise is unique?

Errors:

There are degrees of errors, everyone makes human mistakes, but there is a level impossible to reproduce by carelessness, and therefore almost certainly has to be deliberate. One, such as the use of a high-reading satellite for many years before its discovery (probably) and then not adjusting the past figures to account for it can never be accounted for by an oversight. But if this next example even happened once, rather than extend from the particular I can use the alternative of precedent to cover this, which means if it can happen at all (like exceeding the speed of light or getting out more power than you put in a system) it is possible. Here is an example where an exact amount of ice was being lost from the largest non-polar glaciers in the world, until someone actually measured it- they had not only made the entire thing up but even to the exact figures. That is another element of a case, the credibility of the witness, and this was a massive one at the top of the chain, and the precedent if they have been caught simply writing figures from their desk, exactly like the criminally convicted Dutch professor, how many more times have they done it?

"The world's greatest snow-capped
peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the
border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade,
new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."

Leaving the realm of the prosecution, we have a pretty strong case for the defence. Not necessarily a direct alibi with photographic and DNA evidence or I wouldn't be here writing this now, but definitely reasonable doubt, all you need for an acquittal. These include claims over solar influences (sunspots and irradiance), both dismissed as trivial by the UN, past cycles corresponding to present cycles independent of CO2 (very high confidence), CO2 rising after the temperature rises as it is emitted by the ocean (accepted, the counterclaim being today's event is unique in history from burning fossil fuel so not happening in the usual way now), and of course a simple lack of rising temperature at the required rate. Decadal oceanic oscillations also appear to correspond to the 30 year sine wave of recent temperatures (only measured directly since 1850), and the more you add the closer it follows the line, most when combined with solar activity. A pretty good fit and consequent evidence of an alternative driver of temperature changes. Absence of evidence speaks far more for the case than any other, as if the prosecution cannot produce a body, a witness or even direct evidence the defendant was even there then the case is dropped before trial by the judge.

Speculation is not part of a legal trial at all, so would simply never appear, but applying their own criteria prior to the emergence of serious climatology in the 1980s, meteorologists would not look more than six months ahead, and always give the odds per month for the chance of a win. Not any more. Induction is void, so a court would simply dismiss every single paper claiming a different migration route for moose in NW Canada is because of global warming, or the Himalayan tulips are moving 10 miles north a year. Interesting but meaningless in the context they are claiming to use them in.
-----------------------------------------------------

Looking at the evidence as laid out, summing up, I will sort it from the direct (best) to the worst, and hopefully will present the entire system so you can see the relative value of each and every known element.

Ice coverage: Direct coverage- very high confidence (visible for coverage by satellite views) Thickness- medium (as much is impossible to measure beyond a certain depth).

CO2 greenhouse effect: High as reflected by measurements relative to temperature after a 50% rise.

Positive feedback: High as directly measured by satellites and indirectly by the linked temperature.

Models of the future: Inadmissible as based on unproven and largely untestable material with vast areas not included such as clouds, aerosol and water vapour as unable to forecast with any reasonable consistency.

Local conditions: Irrelevant, only admissible if represent a total worldwide trend, otherwise not significant of anything.

History: Very high to medium, depending on its source. Ice cores for example are riven with problems as the air can both degrade and vary in nature, while tree rings can grow from added water and CO2 as well as temperature and can easily be selected for local conditions and then attempt to be used to represent the whole area, which is induction. Written and known direct evidence is very high, as grapes can only grow at specific temperatures, so wine grown in the north of England from local fruit meant there had to be a higher temperature than present. It also proves temperatures can go up by as many and more degrees than present, and the direct effects on society and nature.

Equations: Not to be confused with the real world. You cannot find an effect in isolation however directly it can be measured mathematically or experimentally. They are indirect and either indicate the world basically follows them, as in a 1C rise for doubling CO2 which is based on 160 years of evidence, or clearly not as there is no increase in temperature above this.
--------------------------------------------

Witness testimony:

Professor William Gray (for the defence), Colorado University:

You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?G:
No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible.
I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of
global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight
global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has
been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But
this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It
is not human induced.

Colin McNickle, Tribune Review: "Throughout most of the world,
cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths. In
absolute terms, a warmer climate would mean that additional deaths due
to heat would be much smaller than the reduction in deaths due to cold.
The effects of heat on humans are also manageable with simple adaptive
measures."

Martin Agerup, the economist
president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and one of the lead
authors of "The impacts for climate change: An appraisal for the future":"Predictions of extreme
(global warming) impacts are based on scenarios of future emissions of
greenhouse gases that are fundamentally flawed. These scenarios employ
faulty logic, faulty science and faulty economics, thereby massively
over-estimating future emissions and any warming that might result."
"Future changes in sea level are based on models that over-estimate
current sea-level change by 100 percent. If observations rather than
models are used, estimates of future sea-level rises are far more modest
... in the next 100 years."

Berkeley University BEST report: This totally reproduced Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram (using the same data, so it would wouldn't it), but then tucked this paragraph away in the notes. “Such
changes may be independent responses to a common forcing
(e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the
land warming is a direct response to changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation region. If the
long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO
region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of
greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the
long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g.
fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of
global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

In court this would weaken their case as brings in a material uncertainty.

More from the IPCC directly: "Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050 are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"

"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertaintyin the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisationscenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertaintyin the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particularstabilisation level."

Dr Tim Ball, climatologist.

“So there’s a classic example of
the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started
saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course
we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s
clearly exposed in these emails."

David Deming, 2005

“A
major person working in the area of climate change and global warming
sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the
Medieval Warm Period.’"

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

“No
supercomputer, however powerful, is able to prove definitively a
simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for
warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity,
so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

IPCC

“Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”

Eavesdropping is also allowed in court, as long as carried out within the law. Here are four choice off the record comments in personal communications:

"Observations
do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere
unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of
others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss
these further if necessary"

"I
also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on
it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

"It
seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh
hour by a select core group."

"Mike,
The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by
IPCC"

Friday, 22 August 2014

Today not only did the climate community (whoever they are) admit the temperature had not risen for 17 years, but it was on the BBC. That is like Hamas saying maybe Israel isn't so bad after all. But that was almost old news, as they'd been admitting this for a while now, but the official line is now not only has it not risen despite the chicken running around for some time minus its head claiming it really had, but it probably won't till 2025. Of course a low prediction is equally worthless as a high one, but they've reacted, and boy did they react. That cuts out maybe 10% of mankind from knowing as they (and maybe including myself) won't be here to witness it, but also means CO2 is rising as before, not driving the climate (as natural forces keeping the temperature down are stronger, as many dissenters have pointed out), and the trend will be so flattened the 2C point for 2100 will be physically impossible without a meteor strike putting the planet off its orbit.

This article has highlighted a number of specific points:

1) Previous models were clearly wrong

2) Previous models did not (and could not) provide nearly enough data to run more than months ahead, let alone centuries (the IPCC have gone hundreds of years ahead in their imaginations, or as they call them 'reports').

3) The IPCC claimed temperatures would rise fairly steadily at 0.2C per decade. This happened from 1970-2000 roughly, not before and not since. The glitch now appears to be that short rise rather than the pauses or falls before and since then.

4) The article had to end (as they all do) 'but we expect warming to take over at the end'. Not one empty prediction but two. After the last ones all got it wrong.

5) How it will remain possible to hold belief in something which not only stopped happening some time ago, but is now officially expected not to happen for some time more is only up to the general public to observe and respond. One by one (assuming it's still reported) people will start wondering what all the fuss is about, the temperature and sea level are barely rising, while the ice has not melted and had no one mentioned it in authority not a single person outside the weather stations would have had a clue anything was ever different from normal, as of course it isn't. The actual rise since 1850 is only significant using heavily modified UN graphs which ironed out all warmer previous periods, going against every textbook on the planet. Interestingly the latest report merged the old and new graph to produce a mixture in the middle.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now if you were an outside observer of any discipline which had adjusted and rewritten past technical history every few years or so then I hope like every rational person you would assume they didn't really yet understand exactly what was happening. Because they don't. How could they? In any other profession using such data- medicine, engineering, accounting, if your investment manager revised the company profits from the past over and over again you'd smell a rat and either take your money out or not put it in. If your architect revised the tolerances of a bridge that many times you'd get a new one, as how would you know which one was right, and if the one they do end up using will be strong enough? And if your doctor changed the diagnosis three times or more you'd wonder if you were ever going to be cured or treated as they weren't even sure what was wrong with you. Why is global warming an exception? Why should they keep changing the game, each time insisting their latest version of technology got it right this time (except they still can't model clouds, aerosol or water vapour, or know when CO2 becomes unable to hold any more heat). This is nothing like the science I learnt at school, and when I switched to social sciences as my maths stopped me going any further in the natural ones, they were different in that each competing theory claimed to have most of the answers as no one was really certain, and in fact I discovered most had a piece to add and when you put them all together you got a better picture of the whole, and as a result my marks almost doubled.

But in natural science it is divided between levels of knowledge, hypotheses, theories, theorems etc, each a different level of certainty and treated as such. You simply cannot have a theory which hasn't yet (and isn't able to be) been proven and will take 50-100 years before you are really certain. Till that point man made global warming is a hypothesis. A suggestion, one possibility of many, and as such never had the status to make policies (which are the most devastating the world has seen) and such policies can never be tested as we don't have a control, a planet like Earth which has different levels of CO2, and then a century to compare the temperature on both after we'd tested our measures on this one to see if they really could keep the temperature below 2C.

Instead CO2 is rising whatever they have pretended to do to stop it, and not only that, as it rises regardless of taxes and closure of coal power stations etc, the temperature is no longer rising in response. Pardon me, but isn't the reasonable response now including the latest statement the pause is real and expected to last, that CO2 can't be as powerful as they claim at the UN and they really never knew what they were doing but was just a means to (as Ottmar Edenhoffer openly admitted) redistribute wealth around the world? If your equations add up, work in a lab but do not reflect the real world there is only one conclusion, you're missing something. In the most complicated chaotic system apart from the human mind then pretending you can analyse and model it, and then predict it for centuries ahead is one of the greatest acts of dangerous hubris ever committed.

Friday, 15 August 2014

Normally I leave other people to write on areas already well covered, but this is so important it fits into the revolution at centre stage, so needs to be highlighted, explained and undone otherwise wealthy people (for time as well as resources) will always think they are poor. There are two connected false concepts behind this mentality, which is also the ideology behind socialism and the work ethic, one is that there isn't enough to go round, so we either fight for it (right wing) or dole it out equally (left wing). Neither are correct, as in fact what actually happens is there's always enough but those in charge keep it back. The EU Common Agricultural Policy burns and buries food, oil companies keep oil in storage waiting for the price to rise, as they create a shortage to do so, and the Russians close the wheat market to make a killing. Despite the fact we all know this happens we allow the equivalent of war crimes (as technically they are acting like any other enemy) because we are so damn diverted by crap they throw up in our faces like political correctness and foreign wars which are nothing to do with anyone else we quietly accept the atrocities which affect us all directly. The third world is not poor due to lack of resources, quite the opposite as they supply more than anywhere else, but because similar policies to our own are carried out fully as none of them are democracies. No one (even in a drought) needs to starve, their governments allow it.

The second error I constantly repeat is the single cake economic model. Growth is overlooked, and rather than allowed through the free market (ie no manipulation allowed as described above), any excess profits are cut and returned to the state, even in relatively right wing regimes. That is only a matter of degree. Any chance the people could become self sufficient in a single area, whether by cheap or free energy or growing their own food, and worse still giving away the excess, are cracked down on by the authorities, official or otherwise, so inventions offering energy from water or magnets which never runs out were removed from the market every time someone else discovers it, which as within all matter is discovered by chance on a regular basis. I know there isn't a single example of proof, but having read the similar stories of why I'd personally see the constant stream of similar stories pointing to common sources which are regularly removed from our field of knowledge, especially where the US patent office requires all motors exceeding 80% efficiency being taken off the public system.

Extending from Buckminster Fuller's ideas, breaking people's illusions about the economy and entire way of life would be far easier to carry out if people realised there is at least, and probably more than enough for all of us, but is held back for profit. Not the fair sort from providing a service, but artificially stretching the margin by cheating. It's a fairly simple concept, and a fairly simple solution, so have probably covered everything I need here.

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Rather than write an academic essay on Buckminster Fuller's economic ideas (as opposed to his science), I will take the two which count the most to me and run through the practical implications. The two major points, connected with his philosophy which can be tested in the real world, as most western countries can afford to divide their taxes directly to pay everyone a basic living wage, before working as well if they want to. No unemployment and nothing spent on staff, premises or means tests. Those working continue paying tax, so there is something coming in to pay it, as most people would still want more than the basic and would be happy to work, but not a) because they have to and b) all the hours possible as they can't afford not to.

His second view is the philosophy behind this, which also challenges the 20th century shortage mentality. That is that no person should need to work nowadays to survive, as technology and economics can provide what we all need already and remove the almost religious requirement to work, not because we need to but think people expect us to. Peer pressure is never a reason to do the wrong or right thing, and if it creates a culture which becomes oppressive, then it is building an imaginary prison we have no need for but needs enough people to break free for others to realise it. The shortage mentality is behind the left of politics, who believe there isn't enough to go round, therefore there is competition for all types of resources, and those with the most power gain too much and need a powerful state system to remove it from them. One life, no pleasure.

So, unless the economics was wrong, which enough people have shown is not the case, then freeing ourselves from the illusion we must have a job to be a valuable citizen (no longer to survive, as we do have a welfare system despite the stigma currently attached to using it) would allow our true abilities to come through. Like Larry Dossey, a doctor working all hours and a book idea which never happened till he hurt his back and had to lie down for weeks, and then he wrote the book, it was a best seller, and his old career was over. I personally got made redundant, got another job eventually, and got made redundant almost straight away. While sending hundreds of job applications by post and in person, gaining a total of four interviews, I took three professional courses, two from home and one at college, raised my level to the one I needed but hadn't yet managed, and was then eligible to see many more students who were required to see people only qualified at this level.

A passing interest in global warming led me into a deep web of deception connecting all governments worldwide, once I found the predicted results from rising CO2 by the UN were nowhere near what they claimed. The time I had available after losing my jobs meant I never had to be up at any time, and if I was busy reading or writing I could stay up till I was finished. This is particularly important in writing, as that is from your head and once you start if you have to stop to go to bed how much will still be there the next day to continue? I usually write and stop when it's done, and then have nothing to do the following day, as there's no job to stop me. You get the picture. What are you really good at, love doing, but although it may even make you money (mine hasn't but could in the future), haven't enough time to do it fully or at all as work comes first? This way everyone can work as much or as little as they want to, but it's extra. Many people enjoy working and have the energy to spend most of the week doing so, and if you've qualified as a professional few people wouldn't go out and do it rather than waste their talents and the extra money. So the most essential services would not fizzle out, and guess what, the upside would be many people not 'working' as such, ie for money, would produce just as much as they would otherwise, art, entertainment, voluntary work, but be doing it for themselves and the people they wanted to do it for, rather than their employer who nearly always gives a fraction of the profits the employees make for them back in wages. So not only would the essential work get done, but the quality would improve as people would do it because they wanted to, and the many people doing jobs they don't like because what they do pays less would then be able to all do whatever they wanted, knowing the basic income would always cover their needs.

I can't see a single thing wrong with this, no gaps at all. Since I lost my last job I've seen plenty of clients, some paid and some unpaid as part of my outside research. That again led to my true ambition, media work, a magazine article, four TV appearances and an interview so far. Had I kept any of my previous jobs I may have managed the specialised work but not sure I'd have had much time to read the years of material it needed to cross from counselling and spiritual work to politics. The big picture there is so big although I knew when I'd found it, it took so long I can't see it being so easy had I had to stop every night when I was following leads to go to bed, and only have a couple of specific hours a day to do any at all. I'd have scratched the surface, learnt a few key points, and probably never have got to the bottom of it. The same formula applies to every single person on the planet. You have a potential, you either spend most of your time doing something you may or may not want to do, often for the benefit of other people who get most of what you produce, and are very unlikely to ever come close to fulfilling it doing so, or have the option to choose a job you really want regardless of the pay, and are unlikely to ever resent working again. Your alternative to working is not wasting time, as you are always doing something. Everyone has natural talents, and without the threat of losing your home and necessities will all be free to allow them to blossom in full. I believe if people change their way of seeing the world, take this new idea on board and then realise it's not only superior to what we have now, but quite reasonable and possible then instead of aiming for more of the same forever, will have a new view of life to aspire and work towards. If enough people first learn about this and then take it on board, then they will form a movement and political party to bring it about. What could be better than that?

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

Going through a few online conversations recently it's become clear there are two sets of people. Those who are aware of what is actually happening, and the rest, for personal reasons, prefer to believe it's how it's presented to be, or how they'd rather it was. As well as the phenomena I've mentioned previously, where for example despite genetic and other clear evidence no one is able to become more intelligent than how they were born, only to bring it out or repress it, the other part is believing the lies from politicians and the media, and the general situations where they would even want to lie to us at all.

Therefore there's the sheep's chorus of baas that question why so many scientists would get together and lie about global warming, like why a woman would marry a 90 year old multi-millionaire. It's not intelligence, academic anyway, as the worst offendors on earth are academics, but a matter of maturity. Once you've taken the blue pill, maybe a newspaper has lied about you or someone you know, or you have suffered from being cheated by a politician, and suddenly realised they are not just working for themselves and not you (despite being paid and elected by the people in the case of politicians), they are often directly working against you, as with UN Agenda 21. The amount of evidence is never certain to wake an individual up, but it is certain the source is the most vital part of the awakening. The BBC appear to have top status here, followed by political and academic leaders. So to use today's example, although there are numerous reports and films of Hamas rounding up people and forcing them to stand on houses during known air raids, until the BBC report it those who support the Palestinian side will never accept it. It's happened for years, we've got it both on film and in numerous interviews, but they blank it out from their awareness and stick with their own personal version of reality. Some can't believe anyone would force their own people to be killed for world sympathy and approval, although nothing that is possible has not taken place in humanity since the dawn of history. But the Utopian view, that we are all not just equal as living beings, but as actual individuals in potential, and it is only the fault of society it is not reflected in reality is based on sheer immaturity and not just bad for them but bad for everyone who is affected by policies which try and test the theory which is destined from the start to lose and fail.

Believe what you like, but the Hamas human shields pretty well demonstrates this entire phenomenon as both an example and one which can be extended as a precedent to represent the way people block out everything which does not correspond to their own view of the world. It is not evidence based but authority based, and also relies on a great effort to keep all information able to remove the imaginary beliefs of the masses as hard to reach as possible, so with the internet making total repression impossible, those who do find it and share it are simply dismissed as the enemy. Until we become aware of this failing in human minds and work to correct it, quite probably only via a direct media process as ultimately only the media are able to provide sufficient information with the supporting authority for them to take notice. So the existence of evidence, proof even, is not seen by their brains, but filtered out unless it slips in maybe by coming across it by accident without the preparation to raise the defences, or the formal methods of exposure by official means.

However it happens as long as this phenomenon of extreme human weakness remains, something which should not be possible with the sources from the internet, we will be ruled based on their illusions being perpetrated and exploited by those who fully know the truth but know most people won't see it if it slaps them in the face. Therefore we have two sets of qualities, like a cross. The vertical line is pass/fail and the horizontal is ethical or not. That means when people are fully aware of the truth, and unhindered by illusion, if they are in the negative quarter of ethics, they will use their knowledge of the truth to exploit those without it, as they are mature but not decent. In fact it is that quarter who have been responsible for setting up the situation we now have, Keynesian economics, low interest rates, energy taxes etc, as they know they can justify all this and more to the great majority in the bottom corner who have not woken up. I believe the majority of people have ethics, but the power wielded by those without them working together as a whole (eg the Bilderberg Group and Club of Rome) make as sure as they can the awoken minority who do have ethics are silenced and ridiculed so they have the minimum amount of influence.

Truth has its own momentum, and will rise from the depths eventually as there's nothing else in existence, but these are the mechanisms that keep it pushed down with all the might of the cabal and their useful idiots. Until we have a mass awakening the mass will keep themselves down in the dirt, along with the awakened minority, as we simply don't have the means alone to beat the system as things stand. It is not a hopeless situation, as knowledge is power, and every single person who wakes up will reduce the percentage of the heavy weight holding us at the bottom of the water, but it gets lighter with every soul won back.

I will apologise for any overlaps in material, this is because the hijacking of free society is based on the same principles, and as a result the same themes will crop up over and over again. And this also means the more familiar you become with the material the more natural it will become to know.

False values, the invention of imaginary virtues by those of extreme political ideologies, who have their own twisted misanthropic view of society, and want to impose the list of changes and restrictions on it in their misguided means to correct its wrongs, although none of them actually exist. The list is part of most western government policies, which make it so important to point out and dismantle, although of course false values are not restricted to the left, theirs are the only ones most people take seriously as they are dressed up in nice words like 'fairness' and 'equality' although the means required to bring these about are anything but fair or equal.

Retraining is a major Soviet-style clue, where if anyone is either guilty of using the wrong words or even prior to employment, where the values are deemed so important all employees are obliged to learn the rules by rote, and if they are not able to repeat them word perfect during their interviews will never get a chance at the job. I think by now if you read this you'll know the basics, diversity, multiculturality, equality and environmentalism. I am on a photo site where people regularly travel hundreds of miles, yet there is a huge anti-car movement there despite the majority of the members (especially some who are the most vocal) using them to get to everywhere themselves. Oh, and hypocrisy of course being the result in almost every example.

Having heard the news last night a university researcher deemed Gardener's Question Time as racist (don't even try and work it out, the guy was deranged, but proves how dangerous this nonsense is), there are literally no limits to enforcing said fake virtues. The only other major area enforcing such poppycock of course is religion, but they in the main do not wish to enforce it on others, only as a choice for themselves and their families except for the extremists who do not represent the whole. And if you look at most of them they are actually not false at all, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc, so another reason why the major views of most religions are quite valid. The secondary rules can be crazy, but those are not for others to worry about and only a personal responsibility. Only the fear of sex is unhealthy and false, and has alone managed to destroy the general sanity and quality of life in countries where it is the underlying philosophy even amongst the secular as the power is so strong.

I have analysed some of the worst offendors already here, so will use this to present a general illusion created by those responsible that totalitarianism is freedom. You definitely are not free if you have to negotiate humps, road closures and pay additional charges to drive. They do not save pedestrians or anyone else, as pedestrians will get run over if they or the drivers are careless, not forced to drive at walking pace while manoeuvering round posts placed in the middle of the road. People do die from the emergency services being slowed down by them, but who cares about that as long as children are only run over at 20mph rather than 30. Sounds mad? That's because it is mad. Physical and mental equality is impossible, while financial equality is only possible by taking money from people who have earned it legally and giving it to those with less until they are, well, equal. Forget the fact that no one has the authority to decide how much is too much and then take it away (no, not even politicians, the consent is an illusion as well or revolutions and elections would not exist to change the tyrants for new ones), in this world the only people with authority have qualified to do so, meaning rather than slicing someone open and removing a kidney and ending up with a ten year stretch for grievous bodily harm you do it as you are a surgeon, and you spray poison in a house because you are a trained pest controller. No council worker on the planet or unelected academic such as the knob-end who deemed a radio programme about gardening to be racist has the authority to tell anyone else what to say or think, but the society values their status so much it allows them to by consent, a false one as they are persuaded to believe these are all for the best reasons, but in fact their gullibility is being exploited.

Information is the only way to beat this creeping takeover. Understand the real meaning of the plans and label them the enemy. The wolf in sheep's clothing is thousands of years old as a concept, yet operated no differently today than it was in biblical times. Don't take notice of how these plans are presented, just look at the plans. If a bright child from a good school with top marks is overlooked for another poor one then it is wrong. If parents can give their child a house but if it is donated after death the government take 40%. That is wrong. White candidates are blocked from applying for police jobs as there are already enough white people at the moment. That is wrong.

Use your discretion. If something ends up being nasty, then whatever the reason they tell you they are doing it, the actual reason has to be nasty. Judge the tree by its fruit, again known from the bible but overlooked by enough people to let this ghastly tide of filth overwhelm us in the 21st century. It is filth because it stops talented people from fulfilling their potential. That white man not given a job by the BBC or police may lose their best chance for a career path. That rich kid who doesn't get to Oxford or Cambridge as they used up their public school quota may have missed the chance to become a top professor. Every single person attacked by the left to help one of their supposedly disadvantaged others loses out. Make no mistake from this. And the woman in her 70s who used a bad racial word from her childhood, when it wasn't bad, in a WRVS meeting or the like last week and was sent on a diversity course had no malice and no gain from wasting her time (and apparent cost of miles of travelling) on learning which words are verboten in the 2010s and why you can't call women dear.

Look at the losers, not the winners. Society as a whole loses as well, as it is working with the brakes on, when driving literally so. Cars and fossil fuel have allowed both freedom and civilisation everywhere, and without them you couldn't read this, visit some of your friends and family, or possibly even have a job. Those wishing to take away those gains and benefits are no different to the burglars who creep in a window at night and steal your possessions and rape your wife and daughter.

Saturday, 2 August 2014

If you learn the full details of Agenda 21 and its history (I have just made a programme about it, so spent years researching), it is based on looking after the planet above its people. They basically believe man is a cancer on the planet, with that view you can imagine everything that follows. By inventing reasons to commit what can only be described as atrocities in the name of protecting mankind from a threat they will get away with almost anything and everything as people fear the alternative (which doesn't exist) even more. As long as that continues the restrictions will increase and increase, until and unless people wake up.

By shutting coal power stations and replacing them with what they call renewables, which simply waste resources for show, they reduce the generating capacity gradually till it falls below the required amount (see the Stern Report which explained it was inevitable). People are so scared of global warming in 2100 (shame on them for being so taken in by what should obviously be a scam, but people are generally weak), they will put up with anything claimed to stop it, and actually demonstrate in the street as they say governments aren't doing enough. Then their power goes off, and when it's on many can't afford it so become ill and may die from the cold anyway.
Look up 'managed depopulation' and you will see a long list of more examples. Once people realise their governments (except now Australia) are working together against them there will be a worldwide revolution.